|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 12, 2014, 11:20 PM | #1 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Do some restrictions on purchasing firearms violate ADA?
The American Bar Association Journal (online) has a story where the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is going after the Louisiana Supreme Court for its treatment of those with mental illnesses in their application to practice law, saying it violates the American with Disabilities Act:
Quote:
Here's is the Summary of Findings, extracted from the DOJ letter: Quote:
I skimmed through the letter (45 pages single spaced) and it appears the DOJ is saying any different treatment based on mental illness must be conduct based and not based on the fact a bar applicant has a mental illness (even schizophrenia). Even asking for too much detailed information and requiring doctors' statements goes too far according to the DOJ. I realize the the federal restriction on selling to those adjudicated mentally incompetent would not be affected, but what about the treatment we have heard about where veterans are discriminated against based upon PTSD? What about states which restrict sales to those with mental illnesses which are not "conduct based?" Frankly, I don't know what restrictions the various states have but I would have to believe there are a few out there that restrict sales to persons with a mental illness who have not actually demonstrated violence by their conduct. Anybody know for sure? Does anybody think the ADA might be used against these restrictions? |
||
February 13, 2014, 12:12 AM | #2 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Interesting concept.
I think the first hurdle will be that the ADA (42 USC Chapt. 126) only prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to certain things: employment; public services; and public accommodations and services operated by private entities. So where would the purchase or possession of guns fit in? It wouldn't be an employment issue. As for public services, 42 USC 12132 defines prohibited discrimination as follows: With regard to public accommodations, the general rule is stated at 42 USC 12182(a): This is expanded and clarified at 42 USC 12182(b)(2)(A): It looks at first blush like quite a reach. But I suspect that there is a good deal of case law on these issue by now. Maybe some serious research would be warranted.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
February 13, 2014, 09:01 AM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I believe there is at least one lawsuit against one of the state AWBs (Connecticut, perhaps, or maybe New York) on the basis that the law doesn't allow AR-pattern rifles with pistol grips and that a pistol grip is a necessary accommodation for some people with mobility impairment in the hands and wrists.
I don't believe the case has been tried yet, and I can't remember the name. |
February 13, 2014, 09:46 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Why couldn't it be an employment issue? I assume it's not an ideal test case, but couldn't someone who would fail a mental illness part of the 4473 form apply to be an armed bank/truck guard and then have standing when denied employment based on their mental health prohibition to firearms?
Though, as you said it's probably quite a reach. |
February 13, 2014, 09:53 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2011
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 735
|
Quote:
The ADA allows for "reasonable accommodations" to be made for someone in order to perform their job (a special keyboard or chair in order to work at a desk). It means that if the accommodation is NOT an essential part of the job and the accommodation will NOT compromise performance, then the employer generally needs to comply. In this case, being armed is a necessary requirement for the position, so they would not have to make an accommodation. It is not discriminatory to a mental health issue as someone with a felony conviction or any of the other excluding factors would also not able to perform this job since they can not own a gun and carrying a gun is a necessary requirement to perform the job.
__________________
I like guns. Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices. http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " Jay24bal " |
|
February 13, 2014, 09:54 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Quote:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...ve_gun_wh.html |
|
February 13, 2014, 03:15 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|